(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

You misunderstood completely, as you are prone to do. I wasn't saying that a 16-team playoff would be worse than what we have now - it would be better. But it wouldn't be perfect either, which was what i was explaining.

Your 8-team playoff is better than what we currently have as well, but it also doesn't do what you want it to do: A committee will have to pick the "top G5", so G5 schools will still not have what you say is "key", the ability to win their way into the playoff, because in the end, the decision will be made by ice skating judges.

(02-23-2018 11:40 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What is stopping the G5 from marketing the hell out of itself like the NBA to get people to pretend its valuable?

ESPN and the P5.

(03-05-2018 11:36 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 11:40 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What is stopping the G5 from marketing the hell out of itself like the NBA to get people to pretend its valuable?

ESPN and the P5.

I think you misunderstood the question. The answer is clearly nothing. Neither ESPN nor the P5 can keep the G5 from promoting itself. But there are no guarantees that a G5 promotion will have the intended result. That's up to the public.

(03-05-2018 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

You misunderstood completely, as you are prone to do. I wasn't saying that a 16-team playoff would be worse than what we have now - it would be better. But it wouldn't be perfect either, which was what i was explaining.

Your 8-team playoff is better than what we currently have as well, but it also doesn't do what you want it to do: A committee will have to pick the "top G5", so G5 schools will still not have what you say is "key", the ability to win their way into the playoff, because in the end, the decision will be made by ice skating judges.

True. But at least there is a viable path to the playoff. Its not ideal, but I can live with treating the entire G5 as a single AQ conference. When you figure all the other issues involved in expanding the FBS playoff (bowls, length of season, venues, spring studies for students, etc)--8-teams starts to look like the best all around compromise.

(03-05-2018 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

You misunderstood completely, as you are prone to do. I wasn't saying that a 16-team playoff would be worse than what we have now - it would be better. But it wouldn't be perfect either, which was what i was explaining.

Your 8-team playoff is better than what we currently have as well, but it also doesn't do what you want it to do: A committee will have to pick the "top G5", so G5 schools will still not have what you say is "key", the ability to win their way into the playoff, because in the end, the decision will be made by ice skating judges.

True. But at least there is a viable path to the playoff. Its not ideal, but I can live with treating the entire G5 as a single AQ conference. When you figure all the other issues involved in expanding the FBS playoff (bowls, length of season, venues, spring studies for students, etc)--8-teams starts to look like the best all around compromise.

For money purposes and NY6 participation, the G5 is already treated like one giant P conference. The money share that the G5 gets is about the same as what a single P5 gets, and just as each P5 is guaranteed that its champ plays in an NY6, so too the top G5 team also plays in the NY6.

What you want is something not even the P5 have, a guaranteed slot in the playoffs. Just ask the PAC and B1G this year if P5 champs are guaranteed that.

Also, seems like your stance is self-serving, because probably 50% of the time or more, it is the AAC champ that will be the top G5 team, so that playoff spot becomes a quasi-AAC playoff slot. No wonder you can live with it and fans of other G5 conferences disagree about it.

(03-06-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

You misunderstood completely, as you are prone to do. I wasn't saying that a 16-team playoff would be worse than what we have now - it would be better. But it wouldn't be perfect either, which was what i was explaining.

Your 8-team playoff is better than what we currently have as well, but it also doesn't do what you want it to do: A committee will have to pick the "top G5", so G5 schools will still not have what you say is "key", the ability to win their way into the playoff, because in the end, the decision will be made by ice skating judges.

True. But at least there is a viable path to the playoff. Its not ideal, but I can live with treating the entire G5 as a single AQ conference. When you figure all the other issues involved in expanding the FBS playoff (bowls, length of season, venues, spring studies for students, etc)--8-teams starts to look like the best all around compromise.

For money purposes and NY6 participation, the G5 is already treated like one giant P conference. The money share that the G5 gets is about the same as what a single P5 gets, and just as each P5 is guaranteed that its champ plays in an NY6, so too the top G5 team also plays in the NY6.

What you want is something not even the P5 have, a guaranteed slot in the playoffs. Just ask the PAC and B1G this year if P5 champs are guaranteed that.

Also, seems like your stance is self-serving, because probably 50% of the time or more, it is the AAC champ that will be the top G5 team, so that playoff spot becomes a quasi-AAC playoff slot. No wonder you can live with it and fans of other G5 conferences disagree about it.

lol. Thats probably your dumbest post yet. My plan would give the P5 autobids---so your point--as usual--is totally off base. The fans of other G5's would be fine with a guaranteed G5 slot. Ask them yourself (you wont, because you know the answer).


Frankly, there is nothing more self serving than the existing elitist ice skating judge system you seem so enamored with. The G5 isn't currently treated like a single big conference---its treated like a single big underclass with access effectively barred. It reminds me a little of the pre-1960's treatment of African Americans in sports. There are a lot of similarities. Basically, its about exclusion based entirely on a set of assumptions that are completely unproven.

Ill be happy when there is some sort of REAL LEGITIMATE access by every team in country on the first snap of the season.

(03-06-2018 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

You misunderstood completely, as you are prone to do. I wasn't saying that a 16-team playoff would be worse than what we have now - it would be better. But it wouldn't be perfect either, which was what i was explaining.

Your 8-team playoff is better than what we currently have as well, but it also doesn't do what you want it to do: A committee will have to pick the "top G5", so G5 schools will still not have what you say is "key", the ability to win their way into the playoff, because in the end, the decision will be made by ice skating judges.

True. But at least there is a viable path to the playoff. Its not ideal, but I can live with treating the entire G5 as a single AQ conference. When you figure all the other issues involved in expanding the FBS playoff (bowls, length of season, venues, spring studies for students, etc)--8-teams starts to look like the best all around compromise.

For money purposes and NY6 participation, the G5 is already treated like one giant P conference. The money share that the G5 gets is about the same as what a single P5 gets, and just as each P5 is guaranteed that its champ plays in an NY6, so too the top G5 team also plays in the NY6.

What you want is something not even the P5 have, a guaranteed slot in the playoffs. Just ask the PAC and B1G this year if P5 champs are guaranteed that.

Also, seems like your stance is self-serving, because probably 50% of the time or more, it is the AAC champ that will be the top G5 team, so that playoff spot becomes a quasi-AAC playoff slot. No wonder you can live with it and fans of other G5 conferences disagree about it.

My plan would give the P5 autobids---so your point--as usual--is completely off base. The fans of other G5's would be fine with a guaranteed G5 slot. Ask them yourself.


Frankly, there is nothing more self serving than the existing elitist ice skating judge system you seem so enamored with. The G5 isn't currently treated like a single big conference---its treated like a single big underclass with access effectively barred. It reminds me a little of the pre-1960's treatment of African Americans in sports. There are a lot of similarities. Basically, its about exclusion based entirely on a set of assumptions that are completely unproven.

The comparison to African-Americans strikes me as arguably offensive. Blacks were banned from many sports on truly unproven assumptions about their skills, work ethic, etc. that were based in raw racism. Those assumptions were not only unproven, they were also untrue.

In contrast, the belief that, e.g., the SEC is better than the Sun Belt isn't unproven and it isn't untrue. The results of football games show that the SEC is clearly better. It is neither an unproven assumption nor is it untrue. It's true.

As for what G5 fans would be fine with, I've already seen at least on of the ARK-ST contingent say they will only be fine with a guaranteed bid for all conference champs. He thinks that because of course the Sun Belt champ will never get a playoff bid under your system.

Finally, my point about the P5 wasn't off base. Your proposal seems to be based on the assumption that in the *current* system the P5 have access to the playoffs in a way the G5 do not, that their champs have an auto-bid. So it beared noting that they don't.

Formally, everyone has the same chance to get into the playoffs. You just have to produce results on the field.

(03-06-2018 08:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You misunderstood completely, as you are prone to do. I wasn't saying that a 16-team playoff would be worse than what we have now - it would be better. But it wouldn't be perfect either, which was what i was explaining.

Your 8-team playoff is better than what we currently have as well, but it also doesn't do what you want it to do: A committee will have to pick the "top G5", so G5 schools will still not have what you say is "key", the ability to win their way into the playoff, because in the end, the decision will be made by ice skating judges.

True. But at least there is a viable path to the playoff. Its not ideal, but I can live with treating the entire G5 as a single AQ conference. When you figure all the other issues involved in expanding the FBS playoff (bowls, length of season, venues, spring studies for students, etc)--8-teams starts to look like the best all around compromise.

For money purposes and NY6 participation, the G5 is already treated like one giant P conference. The money share that the G5 gets is about the same as what a single P5 gets, and just as each P5 is guaranteed that its champ plays in an NY6, so too the top G5 team also plays in the NY6.

What you want is something not even the P5 have, a guaranteed slot in the playoffs. Just ask the PAC and B1G this year if P5 champs are guaranteed that.

Also, seems like your stance is self-serving, because probably 50% of the time or more, it is the AAC champ that will be the top G5 team, so that playoff spot becomes a quasi-AAC playoff slot. No wonder you can live with it and fans of other G5 conferences disagree about it.

My plan would give the P5 autobids---so your point--as usual--is completely off base. The fans of other G5's would be fine with a guaranteed G5 slot. Ask them yourself.


Frankly, there is nothing more self serving than the existing elitist ice skating judge system you seem so enamored with. The G5 isn't currently treated like a single big conference---its treated like a single big underclass with access effectively barred. It reminds me a little of the pre-1960's treatment of African Americans in sports. There are a lot of similarities. Basically, its about exclusion based entirely on a set of assumptions that are completely unproven.

The comparison to African-Americans strikes me as arguably offensive. Blacks were banned from many sports on truly unproven assumptions about their skills, work ethic, etc. that were based in raw racism. Those assumptions were not only unproven, they were also untrue.

In contrast, the belief that, e.g., the SEC is better than the Sun Belt isn't unproven and it isn't untrue. The results of football games show that the SEC is clearly better. It is neither an unproven assumption nor is it untrue. It's true.

As for what G5 fans would be fine with, I've already seen at least on of the ARK-ST contingent say they will only be fine with a guaranteed bid for all conference champs. He thinks that because of course the Sun Belt champ will never get a playoff bid under your system.

Finally, my point about the P5 wasn't off base. Your proposal seems to be based on the assumption that in the *current* system the P5 have access to the playoffs in a way the G5 do not, that their champs have an auto-bid. So it beared noting that they don't.

Formally, everyone has the same chance to get into the playoffs. You just have to produce results on the field.

You just keep putting them on a tee for me.

UCF. 14-0

You cant "produce results on the field" better than that.

To date--every participant in the CFP has been a P5---most have had at least one loss. No G5 has every even broken the top 10 in the CFP, despite several having been undefeated. Three out of 4 times the lower ranked G5 has defeated the top 10 ranked team in playoff.

A G5 has zero chance to get into the CFP under a system that packs the committee with virtually all P5 connected ice skating judges. Not one reputable sports writer believes you are correct in claiming the G5 has any real access to the playoff.

(03-06-2018 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 08:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 08:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  True. But at least there is a viable path to the playoff. Its not ideal, but I can live with treating the entire G5 as a single AQ conference. When you figure all the other issues involved in expanding the FBS playoff (bowls, length of season, venues, spring studies for students, etc)--8-teams starts to look like the best all around compromise.

For money purposes and NY6 participation, the G5 is already treated like one giant P conference. The money share that the G5 gets is about the same as what a single P5 gets, and just as each P5 is guaranteed that its champ plays in an NY6, so too the top G5 team also plays in the NY6.

What you want is something not even the P5 have, a guaranteed slot in the playoffs. Just ask the PAC and B1G this year if P5 champs are guaranteed that.

Also, seems like your stance is self-serving, because probably 50% of the time or more, it is the AAC champ that will be the top G5 team, so that playoff spot becomes a quasi-AAC playoff slot. No wonder you can live with it and fans of other G5 conferences disagree about it.

My plan would give the P5 autobids---so your point--as usual--is completely off base. The fans of other G5's would be fine with a guaranteed G5 slot. Ask them yourself.


Frankly, there is nothing more self serving than the existing elitist ice skating judge system you seem so enamored with. The G5 isn't currently treated like a single big conference---its treated like a single big underclass with access effectively barred. It reminds me a little of the pre-1960's treatment of African Americans in sports. There are a lot of similarities. Basically, its about exclusion based entirely on a set of assumptions that are completely unproven.

The comparison to African-Americans strikes me as arguably offensive. Blacks were banned from many sports on truly unproven assumptions about their skills, work ethic, etc. that were based in raw racism. Those assumptions were not only unproven, they were also untrue.

In contrast, the belief that, e.g., the SEC is better than the Sun Belt isn't unproven and it isn't untrue. The results of football games show that the SEC is clearly better. It is neither an unproven assumption nor is it untrue. It's true.

As for what G5 fans would be fine with, I've already seen at least on of the ARK-ST contingent say they will only be fine with a guaranteed bid for all conference champs. He thinks that because of course the Sun Belt champ will never get a playoff bid under your system.

Finally, my point about the P5 wasn't off base. Your proposal seems to be based on the assumption that in the *current* system the P5 have access to the playoffs in a way the G5 do not, that their champs have an auto-bid. So it beared noting that they don't.

Formally, everyone has the same chance to get into the playoffs. You just have to produce results on the field.

You just keep putting them on a tee for me.

UCF. 14-0

You cant "produce results on the field" better than that.

To date--every participant in the CFP has been a P5---most have had at least one loss. No G5 has every even broken the top 10 in the CFP, despite several having been undefeated. Three out of 4 times the lower ranked G5 has defeated the top 10 ranked team in playoff.

A G5 has zero chance to get into the CFP under a system that packs the committee with virtually all P5 connected ice skating judges. Not one reputable sports writer believes you are correct in claiming the G5 has any real access to the playoff.

You keep falling right into the traps. You should know by now that i am going to remind you that a record means nothing unless we know who it was achieved against. Remember my Houston vs Prairie View and Houston vs Alabama example?

To make a medium story short: a 11-1 record vs a tough schedule is a better result on the field than 12-0 vs a weak one.

That's why everyone, humans and computers, had UCF well out of the playoffs.

OMG I've heard this ******* "debate" from y'all like 50 million times across multiple threads on any given day for at least the past week. Holy ****.

The G4 is going nowhere. The AAC will claw its way to T1 status. UCF is killing SEC this year, Win over ranked AU in football, Win over ranked AL in BB, and now win over #1 ranked UF in football.

(03-07-2018 07:53 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The G4 is going nowhere. The AAC will claw its way to T1 status. UCF is killing SEC this year, Win over ranked AU in football, Win over ranked AL in BB, and now win over #1 ranked UF in football.

If you repeat this in enough threads, do you think it will impact on the real world?

(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

Why not follow the FCS model of a 24 team playoff? 5 P5 conference champs, 5 G5 conference champs, 14 at-large teams. Rate all 24 teams, 1 - 24. Top 8 rated conferences champs get first round bye. Play first 2 rounds on campus of higher ranked school. Quarter finals, semi-finals and Championship games played at the major bowl sites. This would generate far more interest than the current 4 team playoff format. And it gives a school like UCF, for example, and all conference champs a legitimate shot at winning a National Championship. It would also generate far more dollars to be shared among the conferences.

Remaining bowls, if they continue to exist, are filled by schools with winning records not making the playoffs, like NIT is to the NCAA Tournament.

(03-07-2018 10:21 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

Why not follow the FCS model of a 24 team playoff? 5 P5 conference champs, 5 G5 conference champs, 14 at-large teams. Rate all 24 teams, 1 - 24. Top 8 rated conferences champs get first round bye. Play first 2 rounds on campus of higher ranked school. Quarter finals, semi-finals and Championship games played at the major bowl sites. This would generate far more interest than the current 4 team playoff format. And it gives a school like UCF, for example, and all conference champs a legitimate shot at winning a National Championship. It would also generate far more dollars to be shared among the conferences.

Remaining bowls, if they continue to exist, are filled by schools with winning records not making the playoffs, like NIT is to the NCAA Tournament.

Because the P5 will not want to gamble like that. Even if they keep all the current autonomy and disproportionate payout from the CFP........this leaves the door open for a G5 to become national champs. As much as they would like to not think a UCF this year or a Boise another year wouldnt blow through the playoffs and win the whole damn thing, they wouldn't want to gamble on that. They know they have been on the losing end of bets like that, most recently with UCF "not having a chance" against Auburn. Now the same blowtards, some on these boards with similar views, are all certain that UCF would never have won in a single game in this past years playoff. Funny as they never adapt when on the losing end of these predictions. Good thing they don't live in Vegas.

However, deep down inside, the powers that be know that the ENTIRE system collapses the second a G5 wins the playoff. They know a G5 is fully capable of playing through a playoff and winning everything......they know that there is a chance that once in a blue moon, one of those teams simply are the best. for this reason, an expanded playoff like this is not feasible in their eyes.

Otown is very correct

(03-07-2018 03:49 PM)otown Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 10:21 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

Why not follow the FCS model of a 24 team playoff? 5 P5 conference champs, 5 G5 conference champs, 14 at-large teams. Rate all 24 teams, 1 - 24. Top 8 rated conferences champs get first round bye. Play first 2 rounds on campus of higher ranked school. Quarter finals, semi-finals and Championship games played at the major bowl sites. This would generate far more interest than the current 4 team playoff format. And it gives a school like UCF, for example, and all conference champs a legitimate shot at winning a National Championship. It would also generate far more dollars to be shared among the conferences.

Remaining bowls, if they continue to exist, are filled by schools with winning records not making the playoffs, like NIT is to the NCAA Tournament.

Because the P5 will not want to gamble like that. Even if they keep all the current autonomy and disproportionate payout from the CFP........this leaves the door open for a G5 to become national champs. As much as they would like to not think a UCF this year or a Boise another year wouldnt blow through the playoffs and win the whole damn thing, they wouldn't want to gamble on that. They know they have been on the losing end of bets like that, most recently with UCF "not having a chance" against Auburn. Now the same blowtards, some on these boards with similar views, are all certain that UCF would never have won in a single game in this past years playoff. Funny as they never adapt when on the losing end of these predictions. Good thing they don't live in Vegas.

However, deep down inside, the powers that be know that the ENTIRE system collapses the second a G5 wins the playoff. They know a G5 is fully capable of playing through a playoff and winning everything......they know that there is a chance that once in a blue moon, one of those teams simply are the best. for this reason, an expanded playoff like this is not feasible in their eyes.

These days especially with the development programs schools have that can turn 2 star players into NFL draft picks all it takes is a really good coaching job and you've got a program that can take down Top 10 teams.

The next concession might be instead to go to an NY8 and two autobids for the G5. That would add value to all those conference championship games the P5 bought up if more conference championship games had NY8 implications.

However G5 playoff access is still too taboo to the powers that be.

(03-07-2018 03:49 PM)otown Wrote:  However, deep down inside, the powers that be know that the ENTIRE system collapses the second a G5 wins the playoff. They know a G5 is fully capable of playing through a playoff and winning everything......they know that there is a chance that once in a blue moon, one of those teams simply are the best. for this reason, an expanded playoff like this is not feasible in their eyes.

Why do you think this? Schools outside the Power conferences have won the hoops national title and the system didn't collapse, and BYU won the football title in 1984 and the world didn't end.

What exactly would collapse if a G5 won the national title?

(03-08-2018 12:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why do you think this? Schools outside the Power conferences have won the hoops national title and the system didn't collapse, and BYU won the football title in 1984 and the world didn't end.

What exactly would collapse if a G5 won the national title?

Yeah I don't get that argument either. It'd really change nothing. If anything it'd just be a resume builder for that school to join the P5.

(03-08-2018 12:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 03:49 PM)otown Wrote:  However, deep down inside, the powers that be know that the ENTIRE system collapses the second a G5 wins the playoff. They know a G5 is fully capable of playing through a playoff and winning everything......they know that there is a chance that once in a blue moon, one of those teams simply are the best. for this reason, an expanded playoff like this is not feasible in their eyes.

Why do you think this? Schools outside the Power conferences have won the hoops national title and the system didn't collapse, and BYU won the football title in 1984 and the world didn't end.

What exactly would collapse if a G5 won the national title?

Long story short, perception collapses. Perception is what drives everything in college football. Perception is what the media and cartel have worked so hard to craft to build up all the P5 conferences to maximize profits.

You can't talk about college football of the past and put it on equal footing of college football of the present. Ever since the early to mid 90s, college football has slowly been torn apart to create the monster it is now to maximize media money, individual conference power, and public perception of a select few chosen conferences. History be damned. Decades long tradition be damned.

Their 25 year old work of art has created this behemoth that in no way resembles anything college football of the past. So using BYU as an example means nothing. Their new product assures their built in advantages, and in turn, their built in profits.

Just use this year as an example. If we have previous years of Boise, Houston, TCU, UCF as being national champs, through BCS or CFP......... you really think it would have been that easy to leave an undefeated UCF out of the playoff using the CFP committee's logic? The public would laugh at them....... however, they have this 25 year thing called perception on their side. The perception leads people like yourself, pundits, and P5 t shirt fanboys to simply give the G5 zero chance in their NY6/BCS games.

As far as the argument that it would just build the resume of the newly minted G5 national champion to join a P5 conference? Not so fast. The media does not want to pay more money. The current conferences don't want to split another piece of the pie..... and most importantly, lets not start on politics. A lot of P5 schools could be located next to said school and don't want to further compete with them.

As far as the NCAA basketball? Completely apples to oranges. This is a system that has really never changed. The media hype during the tournament is built around Cinderella teams. The history and tradition is that everybody is included, at least a little. Now, if the major basketball conferences started putting in qualifiers and restrictions to leave a lot of the conferences out to the point that few few have an invite, in 25 years....... yes, we can have this same argument when a few generations grow up on the new garbage that has been shoved down their throats.

(03-08-2018 06:54 AM)otown Wrote:  

(03-08-2018 12:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 03:49 PM)otown Wrote:  However, deep down inside, the powers that be know that the ENTIRE system collapses the second a G5 wins the playoff. They know a G5 is fully capable of playing through a playoff and winning everything......they know that there is a chance that once in a blue moon, one of those teams simply are the best. for this reason, an expanded playoff like this is not feasible in their eyes.

Why do you think this? Schools outside the Power conferences have won the hoops national title and the system didn't collapse, and BYU won the football title in 1984 and the world didn't end.

What exactly would collapse if a G5 won the national title?

Long story short, perception collapses. Perception is what drives everything in college football. Perception is what the media and cartel have worked so hard to craft to build up all the P5 conferences to maximize profits.

You can't talk about college football of the past and put it on equal footing of college football of the present. Ever since the early to mid 90s, college football has slowly been torn apart to create the monster it is now to maximize media money, individual conference power, and public perception of a select few chosen conferences. History be damned. Decades long tradition be damned.

Their 25 year old work of art has created this behemoth that in no way resembles anything college football of the past. So using BYU as an example means nothing. Their new product assures their built in advantages, and in turn, their built in profits.

Just use this year as an example. If we have previous years of Boise, Houston, TCU, UCF as being national champs, through BCS or CFP......... you really think it would have been that easy to leave an undefeated UCF out of the playoff using the CFP committee's logic? The public would laugh at them....... however, they have this 25 year thing called perception on their side. The perception leads people like yourself, pundits, and P5 t shirt fanboys to simply give the G5 zero chance in their NY6/BCS games.

As far as the argument that it would just build the resume of the newly minted G5 national champion to join a P5 conference? Not so fast. The media does not want to pay more money. The current conferences don't want to split another piece of the pie..... and most importantly, lets not start on politics. A lot of P5 schools could be located next to said school and don't want to further compete with them.

As far as the NCAA basketball? Completely apples to oranges. This is a system that has really never changed. The media hype during the tournament is built around Cinderella teams. The history and tradition is that everybody is included, at least a little. Now, if the major basketball conferences started putting in qualifiers and restrictions to leave a lot of the conferences out to the point that few few have an invite, in 25 years....... yes, we can have this same argument when a few generations grow up on the new garbage that has been shoved down their throats.

When/why did the NCAA lose control over college football? It is the only NCAA sport that does not have an NCAA champion. What makes every other NCAA sport great is that a true college champion is named with all schools eligible to participate. Look at how great the NCAA basketball championship is. The national championship that the P5 has been allowed to create in football with the exclusion of other FBS schools is an affront to college athletics.